The issue at hand is to find a framework that captures the

We offer the following as a more extensive descripton of each of the seven capitals
NATURAL CAPITAL
The concept of culture provides a frame of reference 
for understanding the fabric of community life. This 
fabric is often connected by a common language, 
symbols, gestures, beliefs, values, and resources. In 
a classic textbook definition, culture consists of the 
material and nonmaterial aspects of a way of life, 
which are shared and transmitted among members 
of a society (Rogers et al., 1988). Culture is viewed 
as a “tool kit of symbols, stories, rituals, even the 
world-view that shapes individuals” (Swidler,1986)
It includes the values and symbols reflected in 
clothing, music, industry, art, language, and customs.
It also encompasses events, materials (paintings, 
books), festivals, museums, and other activities 
occurring in communities (Flora and Flora, 2008).
CULTURAL CAPITAL
In its simplest form, human capital reflects the 
investments that people make in their education, on-
the-job training, or health. Such activities translate 
into improved knowledge, skills, and health status for 
individuals – factors that increase their human capital 
stock. As stocks improve, productivity levels increase, 
resulting in higher earnings for these workers.
Human capital also refers to efforts by individuals to 
enhance their interpersonal and leadership skills in 
hopes of strengthening their ability to become active 
contributing members to the civic health of their 
communities (Flora and Flora, 2008).
The benefits of human capital investments are not 
accrued solely to individuals. Communities with good 
shares of educated, healthy, and skilled workers 
also benefit, especially in their capacity to remain 
resilient during periods of economic uncertainty.
Places with a good base of creative/knowledge-based 
workers, for example, tend to experience economic 
growth or stability. Why is that the case? Simply put, 
creative/knowledge-based workers serve as engines 
of innovation and entrepreneurial activities, actions 
that help create a good number of high paying jobs in 
communities and regions (Henderson and Abraham, 
2005; Metcalfe and Ramlogan, 2005; Munnich and 
Schrock, 2003). Similarly, the expanding interest in 
STEM-related occupations (those associated with 
science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is 
due, in no small measure, to the fact that STEM-related 
jobs have outpaced non-STEM jobs by a factor of 3 to 1 
in the U.S. over the span of the last decade (Langdon et 
al., 2011). But, communities that want to gain ground 
in terms of expanding their creative/knowledge or 
STEM-related sectors will be unable do to so without 
the presence of a sizable pool of workers with strong 
human capital credentials.
HUMAN CAPITAL

---

Page 3
Social capital represents the “glue” that holds a 
community together and whose presence can spur 
the type of economic growth that brings benefits 
to the entire community. In communities where 
good things are happening across the spectrum 
– in education, in job creation, in health care, in 
community services – a broad-based corps of civic-
minded people and organizations is often in place 
to undergird these important activities. Social 
capital consists of “bonding” and “bridging” activities 
that occur within the local community setting, as 
well as “linkages” that tie community members 
to organizations and resources located outside 
the community (what is sometimes referred to 
as vertical connections). Bonding represents the 
strong interactions and ties that people have with 
family, friends, neighbors, and close work associates.
Bridging reflects the linkages that individuals have 
with people and groups within the community with 
whom they have only limited interactions or with 
individuals and organizations outside of the locality. 
These types of relationships are what Granovetter 
(1973) labels as “weak ties” that can be accessed in 
times of need.
The third element, vertical linkages, offers an avenue 
for local people, organizations and communities to 
gain access to valuable resources and ideas from 
outside the community that can be used to support 
and guide local initiatives. According to Woolcock 
(2001), the presence of various combinations of 
bonding, bridging, and linking social capital can have 
positive impacts on the range of social and economic 
outcomes that are possible in communities.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE SEVEN COMMUNITY CAPITALS
We offer the following as a more extensive descripton of each of the seven capitals
SOCIAL CAPITAL
There are several dimensions associated with the concept 
of political capital. The first relates to individuals who are 
in positions of power and influence in the community. As 
Flora and Flora (2008:145) note, it is “the ability to affect 
the distribution of both public and private resources within 
the community.” A second dimension has to do with the 
ability to gain access to individuals and organizations – the 
so-called power brokers or movers and shakers -- with 
the resources to influence important decisions (Flora 
et al., 2004). A third aspect of political capital refers to 
efforts that are made to develop new leadership in the 
community, and/or expand the engagement of citizens 
in discussions of important community matters through 
the use of various strategies, such as deliberation forums.
By focusing on these various aspects of political capital, 
we can gain a better understanding of what people and 
groups are calling the shots in a community, and what 
groups are having little influence or role in shaping local 
decisions (Flora and Flora, 2008).
How can you determine the nature of political capital 
in your community? A good bit of it requires careful 
monitoring of how and by whom decisions are made in a 
community. For example, drawing upon a rich literature 
on community power, we know that when key decisions 
are made by only a handful of people, you tend to have 
an elite leadership structure in place in the community. 
On the other hand, if decisions tend to be dispersed 
across a variety of people and groups, depending on the 
issue being discussed or debated, then you may have 
the presence of a more pluralistic leadership structure 
(Aiken and Mott, 1970). Other hints of whether influence 
is shared or held tightly by a small group of elites is when 
you see (or fail to see) the launching of local leadership 
development programs, community/town-hall meetings, 
or public deliberation sessions, features of a community 
that suggest that local leaders are open to the involvement 
of a larger group of people weighing in, and actively taking